Thin Line Between Religions and Cults

Farnaz2,

The Golden Rule was around long before that bastian of morality Leviticus adopted it as a Christian idea.

The point is that Christian morality offers not a single improvement on the Golden Rule. With so many flaws and contradictions, Christianity is clearly an inferior moral code compared to the Golden Rule.

"Golden Rule," sans surplus value associations:

* "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18

"All of this to say that morality can be set only by the Almighty Himself ... Need a refresher course? Check out the Ten Commandments. It is a good list."

------------------------

Which Almighty's Ten Commandments should I follow? Yahweh's, Jesus', or the Pope's?

If your Almighty would be a little more specific, then I might be more little more observant!

Who is this fictional Almighty anyway? By the way you describe him, he sounds like nothing more than a glorified Saturday morning cartoon character.

And your puny little Almighty can bite my ass if he thinks his inferior morality somehow trumps the golden rule.

Alrighty Almighty?

Continued from previous post:

The Bhangi are the "scavengers" of India, the lowest level of Dalit. Scavenging is against the law in India, and the need for it could be easily eliminated by the government. Scavenging persists. In the twenty-first century. In India.

See: Bhangi, Scavenger in Indian society: marginality, identity, and politicization of the community

By Rama Sharma
--
You can access a fair amount of this book here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=v_aZm_MQjygC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=Bhangi+(night+scavenger)&source=bl&ots=xfJcwWdpaQ&sig=9O0ld1d8yA6QQRqTb_-eZ8-71MY&hl=en&ei=rZvZSf34NsLMlQeM6_XKDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA51,M1

Clearthinking1 writes in reference to Hinduism:

"This minimizes cult-like behavior, and allows the focus to remain on the spiritual evolution of the individual."

Reply (Abridged, heavily)

Caste--the DALIT

Dowry deaths (murders)

Female feticide

Gujarat and the aftermath

95 separate mafias

Daud Ibrahim

With all due respect to the comments here, I wish to share how this is proof that left to mankind's intelligence, morality cannot be determined - one set of "morality" can be criticized as well as another person's set of moral laws. All of this to say that morality can be set only by the Almighty Himself, who made the world and all the creatures in it, and all the supernal worlds as well. It is only from the Almighty's perspective and understanding of His Will that morality can be set in stone.

The role of people is to make moral choices and choose to enact the Almighty's Will. when we begin to make changes, we have entered into this gray area which has generated this whole discussion.

May we all be able to see the morality that the Almighty has set forth for every man, Torah for the Jews and the Seven Noahide Laws for the non-Jews - and may we have clarity of mind to realize that choosing to follow this moral code is the most pleasant existence for every man, woman and child.

Need a refresher course? Check out the Ten Commandments. It is a good list.

What is the difference between a religion and a cult? More members, and whether or not you agree with their philosophy.

Time is a vetting process, no matter what you quibble about it. Certainly insights into the human dilemma have instant validity, but that validity is firmly established with the passage of time.

My two original tests still stand. You could use objective standards to measure happiness, if you like and I suppose most major religions would pass the theoretical proof test and many would pass the actual test proof as well.

I wonder how happy starving your child to death makes someone.

It seems to me people who belong to "established" religions use the term cult to denigrate the particular religion being referred to. However, under dictionary definitions nearly all religions could be called a cult (I call them that myself).

I fail to understand why the belief that their spiritual leader (Queen Antoinette) could resurrect the dead boy is any different from the belief that a rosary blessed by Pope John Paul II cured a man given up for dead at a hospital. Both beliefs are irrational, both indicate a reverence for a modern person, both are/were the leaders of their respective religions. Here is the article describing the Catholic cult miracle:
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=7234444&page=1

And here is the Webster definitions of cult:
1: formal religious veneration : worship
2: a system of religious beliefs and ritual ; also : its body of adherents
3: a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious ; also : its body of adherents
4: a system for the cure of disease based on dogma set forth by its promulgator
5 a: great devotion to a person, idea, object, movement, or work (as a film or book)

Attempting to translate differences between a religion and a cult is like rationalizing a synthetic proposition into an analytic one because it is easier to understand; an impossibility that becomes merely an exercise in mental masturbation. In other words, a waste of time. Difference? There is none.

The distinction between religion and cult is one of cultural acceptance. Christianity was a cult until Constantine recognized it as the official religion of the Roman Empire. If you try to get someone to define a cult without recorse to their own sectarian dogma, you get nonsense. The only definition that I have ever head make sense was by defining a cult as group that has as part of their doctrine:

The elevation of a human to more than human status.
The right to control what you believe
The right to control how you behave, no matter what the contect
The right to control who you may associate with
The right to impose their beliefs, when possible, on those who do not belong to their sect.
The right to prevent people from leaving their sect or to punish those who do.

I realize that this would include may of what people generally call "religions," but that's the only way I see to determine what constitutes a cult.

I read this article by Rabbi Hirschfield three times and it makes absolutely no sense at all. BC, in the well known comic strip was asked the same question a number of years ago. In BC's opinion, the major difference between cults and religions is that religions have money. Was that the good Rabbi's point in some way?

Hello Mr. Hirshfield,

It is strange to me that you spend 2/3rds of you paper on the similarities that 'cults' and 'religions' have, questioning what it is that defines a "cult", and then you lead us through how "Cults are typically defined by five characteristics".

Your five characteristics I find stereotypical and biased.

Yes, all religions have practiced those five, and many that are currently commonly defined as religions practice them today. This does not show that "the line between cults and religions is clear". Just more muddled.

Longevity does carry weight. Christianity took decades if not centuries to raise from a ragtag cult to a bonafide religion, and cultural and popular acceptance was no small part of that.

"Both history and the contemporary world are filled with cult-like practices that are adopted by millions."

"And more importantly, most religions can and do slip into cult-like behavior from time to time. "

If popular acceptance is not a marker for you to define "cult" then I am unclear what does define it, outside of the five commonality that you forward. What are the "cult-like practices"? What makes them "cult-like"?

Mr. Hirschfield,

You wrote, "The fact that PRETTY MUCH every religion has done all of these things at some point in history of the group means the while the line between cults and religions is clear, it is not fixed or static."

The only religion that does not have a founder or prophet is Hinduism. This minimizes cult-like behavior, and allows the focus to remain on the spiritual evolution of the individual. This also promotes a more tolerant and peaceful attitude. The emotional attachment to the founder or affiliation with a group tends to promote supremacist attitudes.

Buddha, Zoroaster, Mahavir (Jain), Guru Nanak (Sikh), Moses, Jesus, Mohamed, Joseph Smith all said nice things. But the cult-like tendencies a founder creates can have destructive effects.

Believingscientist writes:
"Don't judge on age, judge on how 'useful' or true the text is."

I do. That's why I'm an atheist.

Gladerunner,

You may be surprised to learn that you can actually quantitatively measure things like quality of life or happiness to some extent. It has been shown that some things like marriage and religious affiliation have strong positive correlations with happiness. Of course this doesn't fit perfectly with the picture painted by traditional religious values as children actually have a negative correlation with happiness, but overall it can be shown that religious affiliation does make you happier. It would be fascinating to try this same study out of so-called "cult" members.

Most of the mainstream religions, certainly Christianity was a cult at one stage of its development to a "bona fide" religion.

It would seem numbers matter.

It is interesting in this day and age how cult leaders are seens as whackos yet Jesus was the greatest guy on earth when they essentially preach similar ridiculous tales.

At least humanity has developed enough to not buy this garbage in the modern era. Its a pity we cant use that same scepticism on unsubstantiated miracles 2000 years ago.

If indeed one of the differences between a religion and a cult is the number of adherents, Judaism is then fast becoming a cult.

Quotations:

"...if you believe in it, it is a religion or perhaps 'the' religion;
and if you do not care one way or another about it, it is a sect;
but if you fear and hate it, it is a cult." Leo Pfeffer.

"My working definition of a cult is a group that you don't like, and I say that somewhat facetiously, but at the same time, in fact, that is my working definition of a cult. It is a group that somebody doesn't like. It is a derogatory term, and I have never seen it redeemed from the derogatory connotations that it picked up in the sociological literature in the 1930s." J. Gordon Melton.

"A cult is a church down the street from your church." Anon

edbyronadams:
Does it have actual proof? Does adherence to the practices make the lives of the faithful seem better to family and friends or outside observers?

That's not 'proof' that's all opinion, completely subjective. Since 'better' and 'seem' are not measurable or objective, they can hardly be used to 'prove' anything.

"religious texts that survive over a long period of time prove themselves worthy"

Or merely their longevity. Humans have held on to many, many ancient myths and beliefs long after their usefulness has expired.

"That is, is it consistent with a written text and here age does matter"
The original Judeo-Christian texts were written only after centuries of oral history. Therefore for centuries, not consistent with written text.
The same with the New testament, in it's earliest days it was NOT based on written texts.
The rules of your test would not allow for new beliefs, such as Christianity to ever become religions since at some point they ALL did not have a 'written text'.
Perhaps 'One Mind' is still in the process of writing it's own.

You appear to have crafted your test only with specific target results in mind... Your religion passes, most others fail... How convenient.

The difference between a cult and a religion is a count of the number of adherents.

That thin line referred to here is two-dimensional at best.

Edbyronadams,

My point is that Romeo and Juliet or Mozart haven't become better over time. They were just as good when they were written as they are today. If you had to wait for 2000 years to tell if the New Testament is true you would miss out on a lot of spiritually useful truth in the meantime. Don't judge on age, judge on how "useful" or true the text is.

BelievingScientist

As I stated in my original post, with the parallel to music and wine, the test of time proves the true. If you would like to add literature to the list, I have no objection.

That test applies to "sacred" texts as well although they must appeal to some metaphysical construct that "makes some kind of deep-seated connection with the human condition" for it to qualify as a basis for a religion.

What's really troubling, at least initially, is the story of a woman willing to sacrifice her son because her faith demanded it. But is Ria Ramkissoon's story any worse than the story of a man who waits his whole life to have a child, and then, when he finally does, he carries that child to a mountain top where he prepares him as an offering to the god who tells him to do so? Is her story worse than that of another father who sends his only son into the world just so he can watch him suffer and die an agonizing death?
**************************************************************************************
I'd say that all three as examples of really poor parenting.
If I ever have to choose between my child and my church, then church loses, hands down.

Edbyronadams,

For example, Romeo and Juliet has a "deep-seated connection with the human condition" and has therefore stuck around for several hundred years, but that doesn't make it religiously useful. It is intellectually interesting and evokes emotion, but religious truth (what I would consider "useful" in a religious context) must be deeper than that.

Some of the cult characteristics he stated are inherent in religion also, such as questioning authority and centralizing power into the hands of the clergy.
This woman who starved her child to death probably has some serious mental issues. On the other hand, the Old Testament is chock full of child murders.

"What's the difference between extreme religious conviction and delusion? Between a religion and a cult?"

------------------------------

That's easy.

My cult is a religion. Everybody else's religion is a cult.

A better question is:
What's the difference bewteen any religion and any delusion?

And the answer is none.

"All age shows is that the text makes some kind of deep-seated connection with the human condition, not that it is more or less useful."

The above seems a bit like an oxymoron to me.

"Does it have theoretical proof? That is, is it consistent with a written text and here age does matter."

So then was the New Testament less true when it's books were written? Or has the truth of the Hebrew Bible increased as time goes on? All age shows is that the text makes some kind of deep-seated connection with the human condition, not that it is more or less useful.

If someone claims that God has revealed more truth to them, I'm not going to use time to test it but rather reason and, as edbyronadams suggested, the practical benefits that belief produces in the lives of those who apply it.

"Both history and the contemporary world are filled with cult-like practices that are adopted by millions."

Rabbi Hirschfield,

Could you please be explicit about those "cult-like practices" in the contemporary world? That is, would you please identify the groups you're referring to which practice cult-like behavior?

Thank you.

Here are two tests to determine if a religion is useful or if it is a cult.

Does it have theoretical proof? That is, is it consistent with a written text and here age does matter. Like fine wine or music, religious texts that survive over a long period of time prove themselves worthy.

Does it have actual proof? Does adherence to the practices make the lives of the faithful seem better to family and friends or outside observers? This is a test that many recognized religions fail.